Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Le'Veon Bell 2018 Outlook


afl5013
Message added by tonycpsu

[Automated message: This outlook thread for the 2018 season will be locked on 2019-01-31. Please finish any 2018 discussions here, and take any 2019 outlook discussions to the 2019 outlook thread . If one does not exist, feel free to create one. Thanks!]

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
31 minutes ago, dashoe said:

 

 

the problem with your argument is you are speaking about the avg rb. bell is not the avg rb because he belongs to a select group or rb's who play every down and he lines up as a wr too where he  was #2 in passing market share on the team.

So the pool or rb talent that is his comp is freeman-zeke-gurley-dj-cmc-lesean-barkley-gordon. Which is a very small pool of players and they are not the avg they are the exceptions in terms of snaps, rushes + catches

if the avg rb had those skillsets then we would see less rbbc and more single rb backfields in the NFL

 

For every Bell there's a freaking Crowell, Peyton Barber, Alex Collins, or Derrick Henry. Talented enough to earn a starting job and give you hope but useless enough to lose you a week as your second option RB/flex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dashoe said:

 

 

You don't think if gruden keeps his job on the redskins they have a bid for bell, his big contact QB needs help  and the spare parts rb approach is not working.  i could also see Miami make a play for him and the Jets

 

3 hours ago, dashoe said:

 

 

that dude is broken any guarantee  he will be ready to go week1 after the ACL injury. the luxury for the Redskins is he is on his rookie deal so he doesnt hurt them with the cap

 

3 hours ago, dashoe said:

 

guice - ACL question mark

Thompson-  is always broken

perine- no idea why he is on the team

AP-will be gone

 bibbs-why?

fat rob- what's the point?

 

 sign bell and end your backfield misery that has been ongoing since morris was released

 

All of your above posts indicate that you are an advocate of the Redskins going after Bell. You outline the numerous reasons why they need him in order to "end your backfield misery". Now you are changing your tune to claim that you don't think they should, but they will anyway?

Just confused as to what stance you're taking due to he contradicting view points you've shared.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping him in my IR spot for solidarity (traded pennies for him a few weeks ago before I completely understood the situation). I stand with Bell's decision. Right or wrong you have to commend the guy for sticking up for what he believes in. He made it publicly clear last January that if he was tagged again he'd be prepared to sit out a season or retire and despite the media scrutiny, criticism, smear campaigns and everything he stuck by that decision. $14.5M or even the $6M or so he had left is a lot of money for most running backs let alone most person to turn down. Bell however isn't most RBs and there is a reason that he was a consensus top 2 pick this year even with the contract situation clouding his outlook. Even if you don't consider him a top 5 back and think that Conner's excellence somehow reflects poorly on Bell (which is disrespectful to Conner who has proven he isn't some JAG, I mean he was a 3rd round pick not some UDFA) he is in position to make well over 14.5M next season alone as well as secure a significant signing bonus. I don't think it was worth risking injury and putting wear and touches on his body for a team that offered him a paltry long term offer then tagged him against his wishes instead of trading him or something.

 

Bell is a flawed individual who has made many flaws in the past and I imagine he'll make a few in the future but I wish Bell the best. I think he has made an important step for improving the negotiation power of players by sitting out a season at the peak of his career. I hope he'll continue to push the limit on position capped salaries (not literally capped but often players listed position is used to justify lower pay regardless of their actual play/impact) in an increasingly positionless NFL (this is mostly in regards to RB/WR/TEs which are becoming more and more interchangeable). If this guy decided to be a full-time WR I bet he'd be among the best in the league and honestly is something he should probably consider given the larger salaries of WR, longer playing careers and less injury risk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Godfather131 said:

 

 

 

All of your above posts indicate that you are an advocate of the Redskins going after Bell. You outline the numerous reasons why they need him in order to "end your backfield misery". Now you are changing your tune to claim that you don't think they should, but they will anyway?

What?

 

 

 not sure what part of my statement that i don't think they should go after Bell and i was making  the point why they would you are not comprehending.?  

You are the guy interpreting and using the word 'should' and I clarified it for you.  

I think my point is very clear not sure why u are insistent that I accept your interpretation of my posts.

You asked and i clarified  so what exactly is your point? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, dashoe said:

 

 

 not sure what part of my statement that i don't think they should go after Bell and i was making  the point why they would you are not comprehending.?  

You are the guy interpreting and using the word 'should' and I clarified it for you.  

I think my point is very clear not sure why u are insistent that I accept your interpretation of my posts.

You asked and i clarified  so what exactly is your point? :lol:

Punctuation is your friend (see your first point).

Your earlier posts outlined why you think the 'Skins should go after Bell. Others pointed out that it doesn't make sense for Washington to go after Bell (and they are right because it doesn't) and you defended your reasoning that they should with the reasons you provided. You then posted something that contradicted that by claiming not to ever put something at zero probability with teams with bad management, thus implying that you don't think they should go after Bell. These contradict each other, hence my comment for clarification. You can claim that I made assumptions, sure. But your statements lead me to those assumptions due to your CLEARLY saying how you felt like they should go after Bell. The only assumption I could've made was that you changed your mind from that.

EDIT: If you never felt like they should go after Bell, why respond so many times defending against those who thought that Washington SHOULDN'T go after Bell? Lol.

Either way, moving on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Godfather131 said:

 

 

 

All of your above posts indicate that you are an advocate of the Redskins going after Bell. You outline the numerous reasons why they need him in order to "end your backfield misery". Now you are changing your tune to claim that you don't think they should, but they will anyway?

Just confused as to what stance you're taking due to he contradicting view points you've shared.

 

I honestly think he forgot about Guice when he made the first post, and then instead of just admitting that and moving on he's been playing spin doctor ever since. The Redskins will not sign Bell, not even by accident

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dark One said:

Since the Conner thread is locked for some reason, I'll post this here and it can then be moved as appropriate once the thread is unlocked:
 

 

 

would be more useful in the Samuels thread i believe ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Godfather131 said:

Punctuation is your friend (see your first point).

Your earlier posts outlined why you think the 'Skins should go after Bell. Others pointed out that it doesn't make sense for Washington to go after Bell (and they are right because it doesn't) and you defended your reasoning that they should with the reasons you provided. You then posted something that contradicted that by claiming not to ever put something at zero probability with teams with bad management, thus implying that you don't think they should go after Bell. These contradict each other, hence my comment for clarification. You can claim that I made assumptions, sure. But your statements lead me to those assumptions due to your CLEARLY saying how you felt like they should go after Bell. The only assumption I could've made was that you changed your mind from that.

EDIT: If you never felt like they should go after Bell, why respond so many times defending against those who thought that Washington SHOULDN'T go after Bell? Lol.

Either way, moving on.

 

Again YOU keep using the word SHOULD. .  I never used it and i have explained to you my posts outlined why the Redskins would go after bell not should but you can keep going with what you think

 

geez... . :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dashoe said:

 

Again YOU keep using the word SHOULD. .  I never used it and i have explained to you my posts outlined why the Redskins would go after bell not should but you can keep going with what you think

 

geez... . :rolleyes:

 

Dude you never said the word "WOULD'. Instead, you outlined reasons that CLEARLY imply the word "SHOULD". The below statement is clear. If you want to sit there and go back and forth, as others can also see and point out, fine.

"sign bell and end your backfield misery that has been ongoing since morris was released."

 

The above statement can be seen as advice you're offering from afar. Which CLEARLY indicates "should'. If you were actually saying they shouldn't but would, then you would have shown why you don't think they should but will anyway. Instead, you offered up reasons why they SHOULD. Why is this rocket science for you?

This is absolutely ridiculous. I feel like I am having to teach geometry to a monkey over the internet.

Moving on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Godfather131 said:

 

Dude you never said the word "WOULD'. Instead, you outlined reasons that CLEARLY imply the word "SHOULD". The below statement is clear. If you want to sit there and go back and forth, as others can also see and point out, fine.

"sign bell and end your backfield misery that has been ongoing since morris was released."

 

The above statement can be seen as advice you're offering from afar. Which CLEARLY indicates "should'. If you were actually saying they shouldn't but would, then you would have shown why you don't think they should but will anyway. Instead, you offered up reasons why they SHOULD. Why is this rocket science for you?

This is absolutely ridiculous. I feel like I am having to teach geometry to a monkey over the internet.

Moving on.

 

 

 

Image result for hello mcfly

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dashoe said:

 

 

If that is personal [property woudnt it make sense to box it up and ship it to him?

Otherwise it's petty theft if it's his property :huh:

Abandoned stuff, the owner has not shown up around there for a while...

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dashoe said:

 

 

If that is personal [property woudnt it make sense to box it up and ship it to him?

Otherwise it's petty theft if it's his property :huh:

 

Someone alert the authorities! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheDoctor said:

I'm more concerned with Bell having health insurance.

 

Appendicitis can strike at any moment and health care expenses are the #1 cause of declared bankruptcy in the US. Hopefully he got some gap coverage. 

Good call TheDoctor. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Steelers fan I am sad about Bell not joining us but as a Conner owner I am happy ?.

I would like to see Bell's performance on whichever team he lands a big contract with considering he won't have the same O-line can he still be as dominant as he was in Pittsburgh?

If he lands with the eagles or Packers maybe I can still see him as a high risk 1st round pick next year.

If he lands on a mediocre team like the Jets or dolphins or raiders I can see him as a 2nd-3rd round pick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...